JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. (Oral) For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court. 2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant/defendant No.2 is in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.04.2019, inter alia decreeing suit of plaintiff for specific performance and declaring that sale deed No.2366 dated 08.07.2013 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further defendants were directed to get sale-deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement to sell subject to payment of balance sale consideration and other expenses required for execution of sale deed. 3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below: "2. Succinctly stated, the facts as alleged by the plaintiff are that the defendant no.1 is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4 share in land comprised in khewat no. 926/844 khata no. 1022 rect. No. 43 killa no.18/2/1(0-17) kitta 1 land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla, which comes to kanal 4.25 marlas i.e. 128 Sq. yards vide Farad Jamabandi of the year 2008-09, situated at village Ukhachana Teh. & Distt. Jhaar. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 for his bonafide financial requirement and legal need offered to sell the suit property i.e. 4.25 Marlas i.e. 128 sq. yards to the plaintiff and after the negotiation, the deal was finalized between the parties, whereby the defendant no.1entered into an agreement to sell of his property/land, mentioned above, with plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 4,48,000/- and in this regard the defendant no. I executed an agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses. The defendant no. 1 received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses as earnest money. The defendant no. 4,48,000/- and in this regard the defendant no. I executed an agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses. The defendant no. 1 received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses as earnest money. The defendant no. I further agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 20.05.2013 and promised to receive the balance consideration amount from the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deed.It is also averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to get executed the sale deed in his favour as per the agreement dated 10.05.2013 and on 20.05.2013, the plaintiff remained present before sub-registrar, Jhajjar alongwith balance consideration amount, stamp charges and misc. expenses etc. to perform his part of agreement and to execute and register the sale deed of property mentioned above, in his favour but the defendant no. 1 did not come to perform his part of agreement and hence the plaintiff got marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, Jhajjar along with affidavit. It is also submitted that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.05.2013 to the defendant no.1and requested him to execute and register the sale deed of agreed land measuring 128 sq. yards but the defendant did not execute and register the sale deed, rather sent the reply of legal notice based on false,frivolous and baseless facts. It has been lastly prayed that a decree of specific performance of the written contract/ agreement dated 10.05.2013 be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property land specifically mentioned in para no. 1 & 2 of the plaint and to get the same registered in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed no. 2366 dated 08.07.2013 and subsequent revenue record bedeclaredas wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of plaintiff. A consequential relief of permanent injunction have also been sought." 4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed separate written statements taking similar pleas submitting that presently Prem was owner in possession of said land since 08.07.2013 vide sale deed no.2366. A consequential relief of permanent injunction have also been sought." 4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed separate written statements taking similar pleas submitting that presently Prem was owner in possession of said land since 08.07.2013 vide sale deed no.2366. It was also submitted that defendant No.1 Rattan (respondent No.2 herein) was in need of finances and so he entered into an agreement with defendant No.2 Prem (appellant herein)vide agreement dated 25.04.2013. Defendant No.1 received an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- from defendant No.2 on 25.04.2013 and agreed to execute sale deed in his favour. Whereas defendant No.1 wanted to repay earnest money of Prem, but Prem was demanding Rs. 4,50,000/- hence defendant No.1 took loan of Rs. 50,000/- from plaintiff in order to get the agreement cancelled but later on Prem refused to accept even Rs. 4,50,000/- also. Plaintiff in order to secure his loan amount of Rs. 50.000/- obtained thumb impression of defendant No.1 on certain typed papers in court complex. Prem compelled defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in his favour as per agreement dated 25.04.2013 and ultimately defendant No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of Prem on 08.07.2013. 4.1. It was denied that defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell of the suit land in favour of plaintiff on 20.05.2013. Defendant No.1 was simpleton and illiterate person. Plaintiff brought defendant to the court complex about 4-5 months ago on the pretext to secure the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and then obtained thumb impression of defendant No.1 on certain typed papers. 4.2. It was also submitted that defendant No.1 never executed any agreement in favour of plaintiff, as alleged on 20.05.2013 because defendant had already executed agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.2 Prem on 25.04.2013 and further executed sale deed on 08.07.2013 in his favour. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 10.05.2013? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that a sale deed no.2366 dated 08.07.2012 and subsequent revenue records are liable to be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether if issue no. OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that a sale deed no.2366 dated 08.07.2012 and subsequent revenue records are liable to be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether if issue no. I and 2 are answered affirmative the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or creating the third party interest in respect of any part of portion of the land?OPP. 4. Relief." 6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid. 7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff. Consequently, suit filed by plaintiff was decreed for specific performance and decree of declaration was also passed and sale deed No.2366 dated 08.07.2013 was declared illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further defendants were directed to get sale-deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiff in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement to sell dated 10.05.2013 subject to payment of balance sale consideration and other expenses required for execution of sale deed. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016, appellant/defendant No.2 preferred first appeal. 9. Learned First Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal, resulting in Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 10. Succinctly, contentions raised before me are that: (a) The appellant has a better title than respondent No. 1 as agreement to sell dated 25.04.2013 was prior to the one dated 10.05.2013 set up by respondent No.1 and sale deed dated 08. 07.213 had already been executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant; (b) When respondent No. 2 did not honour the agreement to sell dated 25.04.2013 executed by him; the appellant had filed a suit wherein the respondent gave an undertaking and later executed the sale deed as per his undertaking; (c) The learned courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell dated 10.05.2013 set up by him. 11. In its judgment, learned First Appellate Court, inter alia, observed, as under: "30. 11. In its judgment, learned First Appellate Court, inter alia, observed, as under: "30. From the above discussed evidence of the parties, it emerged on record that the plaintiff has proved the due execution of agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 10.5.2013 and payment of earnest money of Rs.50,000/-to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell Ex.P1dated 10.5.2013 itself and an endorsement to this effect has been made by the son of defendant No.1 namely Kuldeep on agreement to sell Ex.P1dated 10.5.2013. Contrary to it neither any such endorsement regarding the receipt of earnest money of Rs.four lacs has been made either by defendant No.1 or his family members rather the same has been made by DW2 Satish Kumar, attesting witness of agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 in his own hand-writing. No evidence has been led by defendant No.2 about the withdrawal of Rs.four lacs from the bank when he has stated that he had withdrawn this amount from the bank three months ago. Moreover, in reply Ex.D6 dated 15.6.2013 of the legal notice Ex.D7 dated 25.5.2013, the defendant No.1has nowhere stated that he had executed any agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.2 on 25.4.2013, rather it has been mentioned there in that he had also received Rs.1,00,000/- from defendant No.1 (sic - defendant no.2) on 25.4.2013. This falsifies the stand of defendant No.2 that agreement to sell Ex.D1 was executed by defendant No.1 in his favour on 25.4.2013 and he had paid Rs.four lacs as earnest money to him. 31. Moreover, from the evidence of PW5 Deepak Sharma,Finger Print & Hand Writing Expert, Bahadurgarh, it is clear that in register Ex.D6 of stamp-vendor DW5 Tara Chand the thumb impression stated to be of Rattan was not belonging to him. The Stamp paper used for preparing agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 has been entered at Sr.No. 1958 in Ex.D6, which is the last entry of 25.4.2013 and this fact is admitted by DW5 Tara Chand. It has come in the evidence of defendant No.2 that he had brought the stamp paper for execution of agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013, but the thumb impression affixed in register Ex.D6 against entry No.1958 is stated to be of Rattan. PW2 SatishKumar, attesting witness of agreement to sell Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 has stated that agreement Ex.D1 was scribed at about 11.00 a.m. on 25.4.2013. DW2 Satish Kumar, attesting witness and DW3 Sh. PW2 SatishKumar, attesting witness of agreement to sell Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 has stated that agreement Ex.D1 was scribed at about 11.00 a.m. on 25.4.2013. DW2 Satish Kumar, attesting witness and DW3 Sh. Niranian Kumar, Advocate, scribe of agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 have stated that they do not know who brought the stamp paper for agreement to sell Ex.D1. DW3 Niranjan Kumar, Advocate has also stated that he does not know at that what time the agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013was scribed. DW4 Prem Singh (defendant No.2) in his cross-examination has stated that they came back to their home from the Court at about 2/2.30 p.m. on 25.04.2013. All these facts if taken together creates a strong dent on the execution of agreement Ex.D1 on 25.4.2013 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property and rather go to show that agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 is a forged document. 32. Moreover, when defendants No.1&2 have filed their respective written statements on similar grounds then why defendant No.1 was not examined by defendant No.2 in his evidence. This raises an adverse inference against the defendants. Furthermore, in agreement Ex.D1 dated 25.4.2013 the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed was fixed as 14.5.2013. No notice was given by defendant No.2to defendant No.1 after 14.5.2013 when he failed to perform his part of contract dated 25.4.2013. It has come during the cross-examination of DW4 Prem that he did not ask from Rattan whether he is willing to execute the sale-deed, or not. He did not contact Rattan even on the next day. From 25.4.2013 to 4.7.2013 no dispute took place between him and Rattan. The defendant No.2 filed civil suit No. 142dated 31.5.2013, after the plaintiff had issued notice Ex.D7 dated 25.5.2013 to defendant No.1 through registered post dated 27.5.2013wherein he had made the fact clear that he was ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed and registered in his favour on the stipulated date i.e. 20.5.2013 as per the terms and conditions of agreement to sell Ex.P1dated 10.5.2013 and got his presence marked from the Sub-Registrar, Jhajjar. Though, it has come in the cross-examination of DW4 Prem that he got his presence marked in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jhajjar when defendant No.1 did not come forward to perform his part of contract dated 25.4.2013 Ex.D1 yet no evidence was produced by him in this regard. Defendant No.2 has intentionally withhold the best possible evidence which could prove his case. This suggests that agreement dated 25.4.2013 Ex.D1 was fabricated by defendants No. 1&2 subsequent to the agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 10.5.2013 executed by defendant No. 1in favour of the plaintiff and civil suit No. 142 dated 31.5.2013 was filed by defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No. 1 just to create evidence in his favour for defeating the rights of the plaintiffs accrued to him in the suit property by way of agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 10.5.2013. As such the agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 10.5.2013 prevails over sale-deed dated 8.7.2013 Ex.D2executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2. 33. In the light of the above-discussion it does not lie in the mouth of defendant No.2 to state that agreement Ex.P1 dated 10.5.2013was merely a document of loan transaction and agreement to sell Ex.D1dated 25.4.2013 being prior in time and even the sale deed Ex.D2 dated 7.8.2013 had already been executed then the learned trial Court should have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has taken the entire facts of the case into consideration and rightly answered issues No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The findings returned by learned trial Court on these issues require no interference from this court and the same are hereby affirmed." 12. Having perused the impugned judgments, my considered opinion is that the same factual contentions, as canvassed herein, were made before learned Courts below and they were duly considered and repelled and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below were correctly recorded by giving sound and sufficient reasons consistent with record and the applicable law. I am inclined to agree with the same. There seems no substance in the submissions that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. 13. To my mind, judgments under challenge have been rendered after due and correct appreciation of record including the evidence adduced by the parties. 14. I am inclined to agree with the same. There seems no substance in the submissions that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. 13. To my mind, judgments under challenge have been rendered after due and correct appreciation of record including the evidence adduced by the parties. 14. There seems no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Courts below. No interference is thus called for to disturb the said concurrent findings. In this second appeal, no fresh ground worthy of interference is made out. 15. No question of law, much less substantial one, a sine qua non for entertaining regular second appeal, is involved herein, for exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 16. As an upshot of my preceding discussion, the appeal is dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Resultantly, both the impugned judgments and decree passed by learned Courts below are upheld. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18. No order as to costs.